New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369737369
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super
Decompensation
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
415 PUBLICATIONS 9,328 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 02 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As 3
Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10
(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11
SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 12
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression 13
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 14
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 16
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 19
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28
(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 30
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 35
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 45
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 46
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 47
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 48
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 49
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 55
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 56
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 57
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 58
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 60
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 61
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 67
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 68
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 70
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 72
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 73
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 79
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 80
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 81
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; a Neutrosophic 83
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 89
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 90
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 93
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 99
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 100
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 101
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 104
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 105
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 111
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 112
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Neutrosophic power is 116
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 117
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 118
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Two different types of 119
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 120
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 121
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 122
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 123
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 124
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 125
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 126
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 127
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 128
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 129
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 130
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 131
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 132
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 133
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 134
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 135
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 136
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 137
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 138
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 139
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 140
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 141
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 142
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 143
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 144
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a maximal Neutrosophic of 145
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 146
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 147
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 148
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 149
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 150
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 151
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . Since there’s more ways to get 152
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. For 153
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to 154
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The 155
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 156
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 157
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s redefined a 158
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the mentioned Table holds, 159
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 160
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 161
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 162
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 163
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 164
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 165
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 166
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 167
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 168
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 169
have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition until the 170
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then it’s officially called a 171
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” but otherwise, it isn’t a 172
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . There are some instances about the clarifications 173
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. These two 174
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 175
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 177
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 178
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” and a “Neutrosophic 179
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 180
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 181
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 182
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 183
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition are redefined to a 184
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” if the intended Table holds. It’s 185
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 186
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 188
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 189
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 190
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 191
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 192
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 193
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 194
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 195
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” where it’s the strongest [the 196
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition amid 197
the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 198
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition . A graph is 199
a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 200
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 201
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 202
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 203
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 204
two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 205
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 206
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 207
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 208
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 209
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 210
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 211
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 212
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 213
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 214
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 215
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 216
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 217
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 218
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 219
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 220
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 221
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 222
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 223
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 224
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 225
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 226
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 227
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 228
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 229
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 230
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 231
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 233
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 234
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition or the strongest 235
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 236
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 237
and the strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, called Neutrosophic 238
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. Beyond that 239
in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but 240
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any 241
style of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 242
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 243
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 244
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition theory, 245
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 246
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 247
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 248
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 249
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 250
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 251
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 252
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 253
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 254
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 255
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 256
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 257
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 258
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 259
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 260
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 261
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 262
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 263
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 264
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 265
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 266
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 267
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 268
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 269
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 270
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 271
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 272
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 273
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 274
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 275
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 276
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 277
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 278
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 279
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 280
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 281
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and 282
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 283
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 284
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 285
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 286
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 287
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 288
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 289
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 290
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 291
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 292
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 293
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 294
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 295
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition or the Neutrosophic 296
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 297
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 298
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 299
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 300
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t any formation of any 301
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 302
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 303
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 304
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” of either individual of cells or the 305
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 306
of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups 307
of group of cells? 308
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 309
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 310
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 311
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 312
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 313
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 314
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 315
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 316
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 317
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 318
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 319
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 320
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 321
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 322
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 323
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 324
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 325
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 326
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 327
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and Neutrosophic 328
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, are figured out in sections “ 329
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” and “Neutrosophic 330
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 331
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 332
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 333
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 334
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 335
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 336
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 337
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 338
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 339
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 340
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 341
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 342
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 343
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Neutrosophic 344
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 345
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done 346
about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going 347
to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 348
presented in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”. The keyword of this 349
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 350
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 351
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 352
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 353
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 354
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 355
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 356
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 357
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 358
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 359
Research On the Redeemed Ways 360
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 361
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [160],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 362
Set](Ref. [160],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 363
(NSHG)](Ref. [160],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 364
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [160],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [160], 365
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 366
(NSHG)](Ref. [160],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 367
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [160],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 368
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [160],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 369
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [160]. 370
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 371
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 372
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [160],Definition 2.1,p.1). 373
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x; then the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 374
+
]− 0, 1 [. 375
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [160],Definition 2.2,p.2). 376
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x. A single valued Neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by
truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a
falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1].
A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,

indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [160],Definition 377
2.5,p.2). 378
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 379
pair S = (V, E), where 380
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 381
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 382
1, 2, . . . , n); 383
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 384
V; 385
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 386
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 387
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 388
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 389
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 390
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 391
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 392
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 393
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 394
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 395
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 396
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 397
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 398
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 399
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 400
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 401
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 402
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 403
(Ref. [160],Definition 2.7,p.3). 404
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 405
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 406
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 407
characterized as follow-up items. 408
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 409
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 410
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 411
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 412
HyperEdge; 413
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 414
SuperEdge; 415
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 416
SuperHyperEdge. 417
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 418
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 419
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [160], Definition 2.7, p.3). 420
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 421
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 422
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 423
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 424
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 425
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 426
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 427
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 428
pair S = (V, E), where 429
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 430
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 431
1, 2, . . . , n); 432
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 433
V; 434
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 435
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 436
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 437
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 438
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 439
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 440
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 441
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 442
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 443
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 444
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 445
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 446
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 447
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 448
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 449
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 450
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 451
(Ref. [160],Definition 2.7,p.3). 452
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 453
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 454
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 455
characterized as follow-up items. 456
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 457
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 458
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 459
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 460
HyperEdge; 461
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 462
SuperEdge; 463
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 464
SuperHyperEdge. 465
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 466
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 467
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 468
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 469
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 470
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 471
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 472
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 473
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 474
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 475
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 476
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 477
given SuperHyperEdges; 478
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 479
SuperHyperEdges; 480
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 481
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 482
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 483
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 484
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 485
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 486
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 487
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 488
common SuperVertex. 489
Definition 3.14. Let a pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)

S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 490
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 491
of following conditions hold: 492
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 493
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 494
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 495
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 496
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 497
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 498
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 499
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 500
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 501
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 502
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 503
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 504
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 505
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 506
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 507
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperPath . 509
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 510
(Ref. [160],Definition 5.3,p.7). 511
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). A

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 512
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 513
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 514
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 515
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 516
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 517
(NSHE)). (Ref. [160],Definition 5.4,p.7). 518
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 519
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 520
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 521
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 522
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 523
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 524
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 525
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 527
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 528
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 530
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 531
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 532
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 533
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 534
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 535
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 537
either V 0 or E 0 is called 538
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 539
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 540
criteria holds 541
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 542
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 543
criteria holds 544
∀E 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 545
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 546
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 547
criteria holds 548
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following 549
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 550
criteria holds 551
∀V 0 ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 552
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 553
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 554
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 557
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 558
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 561
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 566
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 567
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 568
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 569
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 570
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 571
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 576
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 577
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 580
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 581
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 587
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 588
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 589
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 590
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 592
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 593
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 594
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 600
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 601
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 602
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 603
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 604
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 605
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 606
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 607
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 614
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 616
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of 617
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 622
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 623
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 627
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 635
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is 638
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 639
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 640
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 648
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the 651
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 652
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). 653
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 654
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic kind of 655
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the following 656
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 657
s∈S: 658
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 659
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 660
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic 661
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition such that either of the 662
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 663
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 664
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 665
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 666
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 667
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 668
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 669
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 670
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 671
assign to the values. 672
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 673
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 674
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 675
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 676
understandable. 677
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 678
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 679
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 680
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 681
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 682
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 683
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 684
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 685
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 686
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 687

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition more Neutrosophicly 688
understandable. 689
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s a 690
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 691
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 692
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 693
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 694
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It’s redefined a 695
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the Table (3) holds. 696
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 697
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 698
Super Forms 699
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 700
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of 702
V is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 703
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 704
probability of A. 705
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 706
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I 708
is called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 709
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 710
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 711
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 712
criteria 713
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 714
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Any k-function 716
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 717
2-function Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 718
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 719
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 720
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 722
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 723
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 724
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 725
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic number is called 727
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 728
Crossing criteria 729
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 730
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let m and n 731
propose special Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then with m ≥ 4n, 732
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 733
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 734
Neutrosophic independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition p := 4n/m, and 735
set H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 736
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the
Neutrosophic number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to
H, yields the inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Neutrosophic Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
Now E(X) = pn, E(Y ) = p2 m (each SuperHyperEdge having some SuperHyperEnds)

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 737
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
738
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 739
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a 740
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 741
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 742
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 743
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 744
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 745
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 746
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 747
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 748
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 749
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 750
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a 752
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 753
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 754
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 755
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 756
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 757
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 758
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
759
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 760
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 761
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 762
n−1
X
e(H) = ini = 2k − n1 − 2n2 ≥ 2k − 2n.
i=3
Some SuperHyperPairs of SuperHyperVertices of H might be joined by some parallel 763
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 764
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 765
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 766
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 767
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 768
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 769
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 770
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 771
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 772
E(X)
P (X ≥ t) ≤ .
t
Proof.
X X
E(X) = {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V } ≥ {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
X X
{tP (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t} = t {P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
tP (X ≥ t).
Dividing the first and last members by t yields the asserted inequality. 773
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 774
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 775
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 776
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 777
Proof. 778
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 780
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 781
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A special 783
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 784
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 785
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 786
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 787
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 788
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 789
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 790
E(XS ) = P (XS = 1) = P (AS ) = (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
Let X be the number of stable SuperHyperSets of cardinality k + 1 in G. Then 791
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 792
X
E(X) = {E(XS ) : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1} = (n choose k+1)(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
We bound the right-hand side by invoking two elementary inequalities: 793
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 794
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 795
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 796
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 797
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 798
stability number at most k. 799
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 800
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 802
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 803
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 804
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a 806
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 807
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let X be a Neutrosophic 809
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 810
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
811
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Xn be a 813
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 814
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 815
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Set X := Xn and 817
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 818
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 819
when Xn = 0. 820
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 822
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 823
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 824
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 825
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. As in the proof of related 827
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 828
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 830
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 831
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 832
or 833
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 834
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 836
straightforward. 837
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 838
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let P be a monotone property of 840
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 841
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 842
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 843
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 844
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 845
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 847
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 848
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 849
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let F be a 851
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 852
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 853
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 854
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The latter is 856
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 858
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 859
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 860
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 861
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 862
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 863
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 864
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 865
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 866
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 867
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 868
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 869
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition

= {{E4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
870
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 873
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 874
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 875
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 876
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 877
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 878
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 879

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V4 }}.
= z3.
880
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 883

= {{E4 }}.
= z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 }}.
= z3.
884




= {{E4 }, {E5 }}.
= 2z.
= {{V1 , V2 , V3 , {N }, {F }}}.
= z5.
888

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
892


= {{Eii=110 , Ejj=2232 , E12 }, . . .}.
= az 22 .
= {{Vi }22
i=1 }.
= z 22 .
896

= {{E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 , E12 }, . . .}.
= z6.
= {{Vi }14
i=1 }.
= z 14 .
900




= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
904

= {{Eii=110 , Ejj=2223 , E12 }, . . .}.
= az 13
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
= az 22
908

begineqnarray* C(NSHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition

={E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 , E4 }.
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
=z6 .
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
={Vi }14i=1 .
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition SuperHyperPolynomial
=z14 . 912
On the Figure (11), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 913

= {{E1 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, {E1 , E6 , E3 , E7 }, {E1 , E7 , E3 , E8 }}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi }6i=1 }.
= z6.
916
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic No-

tions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
920

= {{E9 , E6 , E3 , E7 }, {E9 , E6 , E3 , E8 }, {E9 , E7 , E3 , E8 }}.
= 3z 4 .
= {{Vi }6i=1 }.
= z6.
924

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
928

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)
932

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
936

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
940

(16.3)

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
944

= {{Eii=112 }}.
= z 12 .
= {{Vi }ai=1 }.
= za.

(16.3)
948

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
952

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E1 , E2 }}.
= z2.
= {VE2 }.
= z 10 .
956

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
960
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 961
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 962
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other 963
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 964
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 965
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 966
amount of them. 967
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 968
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 969
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 970
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic 971
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 972
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 973
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 974
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 975
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 976
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 977
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 978
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 979
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 980
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in 981
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 982
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 983
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 984
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 985
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the least Neutrosophic 986
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 987
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 988
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 989
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, 990
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 991
type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality of 992
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition since neither amount of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to
form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

eligibilities to propose property such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but the maximum
Neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
couldn’t give us the Neutrosophic lower bound in the term of Neutrosophic sharpness.
In other words, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

sometimes the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is the cardinality
of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality.
There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the
setting of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely
direction star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they
could be considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight
bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 993
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 994
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 995
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 996
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 998
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 999
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1000
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition decorates

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections
so as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of

this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its Neutrosophic properties taken
from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve
to make a title in the Neutrosophic background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge but at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the
Neutrosophic version of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Neutrosophic
setting of non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is
used as Neutrosophic adjective for the initial Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces
there’s no Neutrosophic appearance of the loop Neutrosophic version of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be
loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic Neutrosophic framework
engages one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this Neutrosophic
setting. With these Neutrosophic bases, on a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s
at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition has the
Neutrosophic cardinality at least a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition since either the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens
since there’s no Neutrosophic usage of this Neutrosophic framework and even more
there’s no Neutrosophic connection inside or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t
obvious and as its consequences, there’s a Neutrosophic contradiction with the term
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” since the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality
never happens for this Neutrosophic style of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and
beyond that there’s no Neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first
Neutrosophic case in the forms of drawback for this selected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Neutrosophic case implies having the Neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style on the every Neutrosophic elements of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
some Neutrosophic amount of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style. The Neutrosophic cardinality of the v
SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
But the lower Neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum Neutrosophic cardinality
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality ends up the Neutrosophic discussion. The
first Neutrosophic term refers to the Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style amid some amount of its Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 1001
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 1002
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 1003
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 1004
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 1005
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic
style-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition but with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality amid those Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic

E
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) .
Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 1006
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1007
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 1008
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 1009
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 1010
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 1011
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1012
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 1013
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 1014
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 1016
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1017
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 1018
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 1019
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 1020
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1021
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 1022
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 1023
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1024
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 1025
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1026
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1027
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1028
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1029
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 1030
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The 1031
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1032
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1033
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1034
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1035
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1036
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1037
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1038
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1039
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1040
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1041
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1042
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1043
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1044
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1045
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1046
embedded Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, there’s the usage of exterior 1047
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1048
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1049
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1050
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1051
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1052
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the 1053
exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1054
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1055
with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1056
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. To sum them up, 1057
in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s 1058
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1059
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1060
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition minus all Neutrosophic 1061
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1062
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1063
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1064
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1065
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition has two titles. a 1066
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1067
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1068
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with 1069
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1070
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1071
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1072
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decompositions for all Neutrosophic 1073
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1074
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1075
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, again and more in the operations of 1076
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decompositions acted on the all 1077
possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one 1078
Neutrosophic number. This Neutrosophic number is 1079
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1080
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decompositions. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1081
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1082
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1083
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1084
is re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1085
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Cla

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1086
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1087
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1088
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition poses the upcoming expressions. 1089
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1090
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1091

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1092


1093
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1094

1095

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1096
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1097
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1098
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1099
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” but, precisely, it’s the 1100
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” since “Neutrosophic 1101
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” happens “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in a 1102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1103
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1104
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1105
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1106
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1107
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic 1108
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition”, and “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” are up. 1109
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1110
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1111
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the new 1112
terms are up. 1113

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1114
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1115
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1116
And with go back to initial structure, 1117


1118
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1119

1120

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1122
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1123
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1124
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1125
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1126
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1127
are coming up. 1128
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1130
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is related to the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet

includes only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1131
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1133
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1134
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an 1135
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1136
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given
by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1138
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1139
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1140
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” 1141
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1142
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1143
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1144
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is
the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1145
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1146
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1148
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1149
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1150
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1151
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1152
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1153
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1154
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1155
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1156
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1157
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1158
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1160
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1161
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1162
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t have 1163
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1164
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1165
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1166
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1167
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1168
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it doesn’t do the 1169
Neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 1170
have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one 1171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 1172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1173
titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in 1174
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1175
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1176
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1177
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE is up. The obvious 1178
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1179
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , 1180
includes only all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of 1181
Neutrosophic pairs are titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 1182
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic 1183
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1184
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1185
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1187
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1188
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1189
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1190
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1191
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1192
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1193
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1194
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1195
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, is up. There’s neither 1196
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1197
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1198
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The 1199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1200
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−DecompositionSuperHyperP olynomial = az s +
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1201
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1202
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1203

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1204
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1205
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1208
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1209
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic 1211
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1212
called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1213
includes only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic 1214
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1215

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1216
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1217
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1218
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1219

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1220
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1221
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1222

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1223
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1225
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1226
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and it’s an 1227
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Since it’s 1228
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1231
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1232
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1233
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1234

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic ,

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 1235

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1236
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, not: 1237

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1238

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1239
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1240
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1241
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition ” 1242
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1243
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1244
is only and only 1245

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1246
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1247
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1248
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1249
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1250
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1251
Then 1252

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Proof. Let 1253
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1254
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1255
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1256
ViEXT ERN AL ∼ VjEXT ERN AL ≡

∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez ≡
∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez .
The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 1257
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1258
The latter is straightforward. 1259
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1260
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1261
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1262
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.5)
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1263
Then 1264

= {{E ∈ EN SHG }}.
= z |EN SHG | .
= {{V ∈ VN SHG }}.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1265
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1266
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1267
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1268

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1272
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1273
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1274
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1276
Then 1277

= {{}}.
= z0.
= {{}}.
= z0.
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1279
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1280
There’s a new way to redefine as 1281

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1285
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1286
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1287
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1288
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1289
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1291
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1292

= {{Ei |P min |
}}.
i=1 N SHG

min
= az |PN SHG | .
|V
N SHG |
= {{Vi }i=1 }.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1293
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1294
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1295
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1296

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1299
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1300
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. 1301
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1302
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1303
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1304
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1305
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example
(16.11)
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1306
solution 1307
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1309
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1310
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1311
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1312
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1313
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1314
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1315
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1316

= {{Ei |P min |
}}.
i=1 N SHG

min
= az |PN SHG | .
|V
N SHG |
= {{Vi }i=1 }.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1317
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1318
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1320

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1323
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1324
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. 1325
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1326
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1328
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1329
solution 1331
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1333
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1334
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1335
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1336
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1337
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1338
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1339
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1340
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1341

= {{Ei , Ei∗ , Ej∗ }, . . .}.
i=1|EN SHG |−1

= z |EN SHG |+1 .
|V
N SHG |
= {{Vi }i=1 }.
= z |VN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1342
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1343
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1345

Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1348
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1349
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition could be applied. The 1350
unique embedded SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition proposes some longest 1351
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1352
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1355
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1356
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1357
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1358
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1360
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1361
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 1362
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and the Neutrosophic 1363
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, some general results are introduced. 1364
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is 1365
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1366
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then 1367
N eutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Decomposition =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Decompositionof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Decomposition
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cycle−Decomposition. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1368
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1369
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1370
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1371
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and 1372
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition coincide. 1373
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1375
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a 1376
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1379
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if and only if it’s a longest 1380
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1382
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1383
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1384
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1385
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, SuperHyperStar, 1386
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1387
letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is its 1388
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and reversely. 1389
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1390
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1391
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined. 1392
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1393
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1394
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1398
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1399
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1401
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1402
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined. 1403
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1404
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1405
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1409
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition is well-defined if and only if its 1410
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1412
is 1413
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1414
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1415
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1416
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1417
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1418
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1419
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1420
∅ is 1421
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1422
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1423
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1424
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1425
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1426
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1427
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1428
independent SuperHyperSet is 1429
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1430
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1431
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1432
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1433
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1434
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1435
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1436
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1437
is a maximal 1438
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1439
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1440
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1441
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1442
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1443
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1444
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1445
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1446
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1447
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1448
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1449
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1450
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1451
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1452
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1453
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1454
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath. Then 1456
the number of 1457
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1458
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1459
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1460
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1461
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1462
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1463
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1464
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1465
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1467
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1468
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1469
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1470
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1471
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1472
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1473
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1474
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1477
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1478
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1479
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1480
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1484
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1485
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1486
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1490
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1491
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1492
is a 1493
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1497
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1498
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1499
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1502
number of 1503
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1507
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1508
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1509
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1511
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1512
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1513
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1515
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1516
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1520
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1521
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1522
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1523
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1524
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1525
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1526
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1527
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1531
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1533
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1536
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1537
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1541
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1542
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1543
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1545
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1547
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1548
of a dual 1549
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1553
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1554
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1555
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1558
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1559
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1560
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1566
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1568
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1569
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1570
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1571
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1572
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1573
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1574
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1575
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1576
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1577
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1578
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then 1579
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition set; 1580
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1581
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1582
Then 1583
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1584
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1585
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1586
which is connected. Then 1587
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1588
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1589
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1590
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1591
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1593
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1594
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1595
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1596
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1597
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1598
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1600
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1601
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1602
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1603
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1604
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1605
Then 1606
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1607
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1609
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1610
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1611
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1612
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1614
Then 1615
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1616
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1618
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1619
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1620
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1622
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1623
(ii) Γ = 1; 1624
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1625
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1626
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1628
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1629
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1630
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1631
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1632
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1633
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1634
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1635
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1636
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1638
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1639
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1640
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1642
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1643
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1645

bnc ; 1646
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1647
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1649
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1650
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1651
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1652
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1653
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1654
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1655
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E). 1656
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1657
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1658
SuperHyperSet. Then 1659
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1660
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF; 1661
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1662

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1663
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1664
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1666
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1667
SuperHyperSet. Then 1668
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1669
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition for N SHF : (V, E); 1670
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1671

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1672
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1673
Then following statements hold; 1676
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1677
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1678
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1679
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1680
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1681
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1682
Then following statements hold; 1684
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1685
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is an 1686
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1687
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1688
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, then S is a dual 1689
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1690
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1691
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1692
statements hold; 1693
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1694
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1695
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1696
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1698
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1700
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1701
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1702
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1703
statements hold; 1704
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1707
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1709
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1711
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1712
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1714
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1715
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1716
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1718
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1720
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1723
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1725
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1726
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1727
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1729
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1731
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; 1732
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1734
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1736
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1737
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1738
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1740
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1742
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1745
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1747
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. Then following statements hold; 1748
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1749
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1751
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1753
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. 1756
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1757
Neutrosophic Recognition 1758
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1759
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1760
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1761
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1762
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1763
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1764
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1765
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1766
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1767
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1768
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1769
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1770
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1771
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1772
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1773
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1774
happened and what’s done. 1775
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1776
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1777
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1778
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1779
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1781
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition or the 1782
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition in those Neutrosophic 1783
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1784
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1785
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1786
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1787
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1788
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1789
featured. 1790
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1791
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1792
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1793
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1794
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1795
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1797
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1798
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1799
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1800
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1801
Neutrosophic featured. 1802
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1803
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1804
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1805
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1806
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1807
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1809
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1810
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1811
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1812
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition are defined on a real-world application, titled 1813
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1814
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1815
recognitions? 1816
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1817
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1818
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1819
compute them? 1820
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1821
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition? 1822
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the Neutrosophic 1823
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1824
and they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, are there else? 1825
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1826
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1827
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1828
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1829
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1830
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1831
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1832
highlighted. 1833
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1834
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1835
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1836
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1837
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the 1838
new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, finds the 1839
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1840
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1841
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1842
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1843
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, 1844
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general 1845
results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and the 1846
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition. The clarifications, instances and 1847
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1848
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1849
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 1850
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 1851
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 1852
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1853
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1854
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1855
called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1856
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1857
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1858
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1859
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1860
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1861
Forms 1862
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1863
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1867
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1868
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1869
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1870
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1871
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1872
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1873
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1874
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1875
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1876
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1877
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1878
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1879
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1880
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1883
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1885
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1886
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1887
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1888
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1890
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1891
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1894
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1895
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1898
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1899
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1900
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1901
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1902
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1903
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1904
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1905
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1906
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1907
Extreme coefficient; 1908
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1909
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1910
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1912
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1913
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1914
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1918
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1919
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1920
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1925
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1927
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1928
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1932
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1935
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1936
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1941
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1942
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1944
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1946
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1955
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1956
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1960
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1961
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1962
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1963
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1964
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1965
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1966
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1967
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1970
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1971
SuperHyperDuality. 1976


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3 , V13 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

(2 × 2 × 2)z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V2i+1i=05 }.



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2039
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2040
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2041
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2045
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2049
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2050
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2051
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality

.
Proof. Let 2052
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2063
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2064
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2074
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2077
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDuality. Thus the notion of quasi 2082
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2083
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2086
solution 2089
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2096

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2099
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2100

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2111
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2119
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2122
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2123
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2124

∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez∗ ≡
∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez∗ .
The unique embedded SuperHyperDuality proposes some longest SuperHyperDuality 2129
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2130
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2137
Forms 2139
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2140
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2144
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2145
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2146
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2147
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2149
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2150
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2151
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2152
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2154
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2155
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2156
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2157
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2160
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2161
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2162
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2167
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2168
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2170
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2175
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2176
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2177
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2178
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2179
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2184
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2189
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2190
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2191
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2195
coefficient; 2196
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2197
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2200
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2201
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2204
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2205
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2212
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2213
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2221
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2223
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2232
coefficient. 2233
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2237
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2238
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2239
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2240
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2241
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2242
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2244
SuperHyperJoin. 2245
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V5 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V2i+1i=05 }.


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin

.
Proof. Let 2319
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2323
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2327

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 2330
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2341
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2342

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2352
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2355
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2360
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2361
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2364
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2365
solution 2367
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2374

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2377
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2378

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2382
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2383
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2389
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2397

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 2400
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2401

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2405
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2406
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2407
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2408
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2415
Forms 2417
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2418
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2422
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2423
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2424
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2425
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2427
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2428
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2429
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2430
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2432
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2433
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2434
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2435
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2438
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2440
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2443
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2445
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2446
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2453
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2454
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2455
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2456
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2462
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2464
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2465
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2473
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2475
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2480
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2482
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2483
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2490
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2491
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2499
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2501
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2510
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2515
SuperHyperPerfect. 2523
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2 , V7 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2i+1i=05 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 6 .



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2597
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2601
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2605
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2608
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2619
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2620

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2630
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2633
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2638
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2639
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2640
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2641
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2642
solution 2645
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2652

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2655
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2656

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2660
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2661
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2662
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2667
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2675
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2678

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2679

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2683
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2684
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2685
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2686
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2693
Forms 2695
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2696
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2700
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2701
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2702
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2703
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2705
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2706
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2707
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2708
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2710
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2711
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2712
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2713
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2716
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2718
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2723
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2724
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2726
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2731
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2732
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2733
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2740
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2742
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2751
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2753
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2760
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2761
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2768
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2769
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2777
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2779
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2788
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2793
SuperHyperTotal. 2801
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi- = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E12 , E13 , E14 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E5 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E6 , E7 , E8 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1




4 × 3z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
2 × 4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+2i=011 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= |(|V | − 1)z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2875
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2879
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2883
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2886
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2897
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2898
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2908
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

= {Ea ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
= {VaEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2911
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2916
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2917
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2920
solution 2923
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2930

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2933
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2934

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2938
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2939
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2945
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2953
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2956
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2957

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2961
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2962
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2963
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2964
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2971
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2972
Forms 2973
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2974
SuperHyperConnected). 2975
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2979
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2980
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2981
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2982
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2983
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2984
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2986
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2987
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2988
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2989
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2990
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2991
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2993
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2994
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2995
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2996
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2999
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 3001
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3002
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3003
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3004
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3006
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3007
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3010
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 3011
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3014
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 3015
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 3016
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 3017
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 3018
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 3019
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 3020
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 3021
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 3023
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 3024
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3025
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3026
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 3027
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3028
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 3031
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3034
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3035
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3036
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3039
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3040
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3041
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3043
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3044
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3047
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3048
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3051
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3052
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3055
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3058
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3061
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3063
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3066
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3069
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3072
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3073
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3077
SuperHyperConnected. 3085
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E12 , E13 , E14 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+119
i=11
, V22 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E5 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E6 , E7 , E8 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 5z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 5 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E3 , E9 , E6 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V2 , V3 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E2 , E3 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
4 × 3z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
2 × 4 × 3z 4 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+2i=011 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E3 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3159
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3167
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3170
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3181
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3182
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3192
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3195
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3200
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3201
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3204
solution 3207
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3214
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3217
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3222
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3223
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3229
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3237
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3240
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3242

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3245
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3246
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3247
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3248
17 Background 3256
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3257
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3258
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3259
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3260
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3261
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3262
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3263
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3264
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3265
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3266
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3267
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3268
results based on initial background. 3269
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3270
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3271
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3272
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3273
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3274
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3275
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3276
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3277
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3278
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3279
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3280
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3281
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3282
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3283
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3284
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3285
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3286
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3287
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3288
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3289
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3290
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3291
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3292
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3293
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3294
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3295
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3296
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3297
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3298
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3299
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3300
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3301
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3302
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3303
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3304
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3305
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3306
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3307
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3308
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3309
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3310
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3311
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3312
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3313
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3314
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3315
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3316
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3317
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3318
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3319
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3320
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3321
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3322
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3323
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3324
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3325
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3326
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3327
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3328
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3329
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3330
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3331
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3332
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3333
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3334
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3335
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3336
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3337
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3338
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3339
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3341
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3342
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3343
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3344
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3345
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett 3346
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3347
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3348
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett 3349
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3350
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3351
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3352
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3353
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3354
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3355
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3356
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [136] by 3357
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3358
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3359
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [137] by Henry 3360
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3361
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3362
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [140] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3363
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3364
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [143] by Henry 3365
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3366
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3367
in Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3368
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3369
Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3370
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3372
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3373
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3374
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3375
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3376
in Ref. [148] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3377
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3378
in Ref. [159] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3379
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3380
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [160] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3381
and [4–160], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3382
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3383
books at [161–254]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3384
readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [255, 256]. 3385
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3386
proposed as book in Ref. [243] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3387
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3388
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3389
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3390
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3391
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3392
proposed as book in Ref. [244] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3393
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3394
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3395
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3396
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3397
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3398
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3399
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3400
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3401
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3402
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–160] 3403
alongside scientific research books at [161–254]. Two popular scientific research books 3404
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3405
science is on [255, 256]. 3406
References 3407
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3408
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3409
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3410
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3411
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3412
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3413
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3414
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3415
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3416
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3417
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3418
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3419
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3420
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3421
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3422
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3423
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3424
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3425
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3426
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3427
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3428
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3429
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3430
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3431
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3432
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3433
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3434
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3435
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3436
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3437
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3438
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3439
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3440
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3441
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3442
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3443
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3444
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3445
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3446
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3447
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3448
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3449
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3450
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3451
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3452
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3453
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3454
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3455
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3456
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3457
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3458
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3459
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3461
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3462
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3463
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3464
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3465
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3466
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3467
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3468
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3469
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3470
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3471
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3472
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3473
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3474
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3476
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3477
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3478
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3479
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3480
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3481
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3483
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3487
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3488
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3489
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3490
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3491
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3492
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3493
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3494
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3495
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3496
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3497
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3498
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3499
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3500
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3501
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3502
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3503
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3504
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3505
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3506
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3507
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3508
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3509
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3510
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3511
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791982). 3512
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3514
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3515
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3516
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3517
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3520
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3521
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3522
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3526
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3527
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3528
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3532
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3533
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3535
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3537
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3538
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3539
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3544
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3545
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3546
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3547
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3550
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3556
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3557
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3562
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3564
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3565
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3568
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3571
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3574
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3575
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3577
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3580
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3582
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3586
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3588
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3589
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3592
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3594
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3595
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3598
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3600
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3602
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3604
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3606
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3607
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3610
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3611
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3613
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3616
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3618
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3620
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3622
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3623
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3625
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3627
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3629
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3631
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3632
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3633
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3634
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3635
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3637
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3638
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3639
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3640
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3643
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3645
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3646
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3649
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3650
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3651
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3652
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3655
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3657
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3659
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3661
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3662
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3663
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3664
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3667
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3668
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3669
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3670
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3673
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3674
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3675
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3676
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3679
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3680
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3681
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3682
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3685
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3686
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3687
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3688
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3691
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3692
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3693
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3694
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3696
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3697
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3700
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3701
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3702
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3703
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3706
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3707
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3708
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3709
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3712
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3714
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3715
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3718
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3719
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3720
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3721
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3723
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3724
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3727
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3728
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3730
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3732
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3733
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3735
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3736
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3738
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3739
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3740
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3741
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3742
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3743
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3744
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3745
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3747
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3748
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3749
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3750
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3751
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3752
107. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3753
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3754
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3755
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3756
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3759
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3760
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3763
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3764
110. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3765
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3767
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3768
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3771
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3772
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3775
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3776
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3777
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3778
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3779
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3780
114. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3781
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3782
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3783
115. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3784
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3785
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3786
116. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3787
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3788
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3789
117. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3790
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3791
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3792
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3793
118. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3794
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3795
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3796
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3797
119. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3798
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3799
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3800
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3801
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3802
120. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3803
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3804
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3805
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3806
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3807
121. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3808
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3809
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3810
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3811
122. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3812
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3813
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3814
123. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3815
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3816
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3818
124. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3819
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3820
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3821
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3822
125. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3823
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3824
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3825
126. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3826
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3827
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3828
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3829
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3830
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3831
127. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3832
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3833
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3834
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3835
128. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3836
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3837
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3838
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3839
129. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3840
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3841
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3842
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3843
130. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3844
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3845
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3846
131. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3847
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3848
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3849
132. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3851
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3852
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3853
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3854
133. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3855
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3856
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3857
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3858
134. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3859
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3860
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3861
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3862
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3864
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3865
136. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3866
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3867
137. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3869
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3870
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3871
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3876
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3880
140. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3881
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3882
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3883
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3884
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3887
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3889
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3890
143. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3891
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3892
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3895
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3896
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3898
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3899
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3902
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3903
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3905
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3906
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3909
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3910
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3912
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3913
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3915
151. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3917
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3920
152. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3922
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3925
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3932
155. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3933
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3934
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3935
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3936
156. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3937
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3938
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3939
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3940
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3943
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3944
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3947
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3948
159. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3949
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3950
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3951
160. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3952
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3953
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3954
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3955
161. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3956
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7792307). 3957
162. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3958
163. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3960
164. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3962
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3963
165. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3964
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3965
166. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3966
167. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3969
168. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3970
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3971
169. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3972
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3973
170. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3974
171. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3976
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3977
172. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3978
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3979
173. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3980
174. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3982
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3983
175. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3984
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3985
176. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3986
177. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3988
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3989
178. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3990
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3991
179. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3992
180. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3994
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3995
181. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3996
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3997
182. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3998
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3999
183. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4000
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4001
184. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4002
185. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4004
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4005
186. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4006
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4007
187. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4008
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4009
188. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4010
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4011
189. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4012
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4013
190. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4014
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4015
191. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4016
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4017
192. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4018
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4019
193. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4020
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4021
194. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4022
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4023
195. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4024
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4025
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4027
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4028
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4029
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4030
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4031
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4032
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4033
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4035
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4036
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4037
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4038
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4039
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4040
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4041
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4042
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4043
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4044
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4045
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4047
207. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4048
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4049
208. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4051
209. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4052
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4053
210. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4054
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4055
211. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4057
212. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4059
213. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4061
214. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4062
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4063
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4064
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4065
216. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4067
217. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4069
218. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4070
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4071
219. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4072
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4073
220. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4074
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4075
221. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4076
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4077
222. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4078
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4079
223. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4080
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4081
224. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4082
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4083
225. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4084
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4085
226. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4086
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4087
227. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4088
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4089
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4090
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4091
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4092
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4093
230. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4094
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4095
231. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4096
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4097
232. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4098
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4099
233. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4100
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4101
234. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4103
235. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4104
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4105
236. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4106
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4107
237. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4108
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4109
238. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4110
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4111
239. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4112
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4113
240. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4114
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4115
241. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4116
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4117
242. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4118
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4119
243. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4120
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4121
244. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4122
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4123
245. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4124
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4125
246. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4126
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4127
247. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4128
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4129
248. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4130
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4131
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4132
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4133
250. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4134
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4135
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4137
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4139
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4141
254. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4143
255. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4144
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4145
256. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4146
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4147
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · April 2023

415 PUBLICATIONS 9,328 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

Hyper Decompress On Super Decompensation 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7

In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10

(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11

SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 12

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression 13

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 14

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 16

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 19

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition criteria holds 21

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28

(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 30

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, Neutrosophic 31

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 35

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 43

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 45

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 46

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 47

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 48

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 49

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 53

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 54

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 55

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 56

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 57

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 58

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 59

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 60

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition 61

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 62

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition, and Neutrosophic 65

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 66

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 67

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 68

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 69

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 70

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71